Author name: LifeZette

Scott Bessent Delivers the Powerful Economic Case for Mass Deportations [WATCH]
News

Scott Bessent Delivers the Powerful Economic Case for Mass Deportations [WATCH]

/

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is making a straightforward economic argument for President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement agenda.

Removing illegal immigrants from the labor force can raise wages for American workers while easing competition for jobs, housing, and strained public resources.

Bessent pointed Thursday to improving economic indicators, including stronger construction and manufacturing employment.

He also highlighted a lower unemployment rate and stability among workers from their middle twenties through their middle fifties.

His central point is one Washington elites often pretend not to understand.

Supply and demand still matter, even when acknowledging that reality makes the open borders crowd uncomfortable.

“Things are getting better. We’re seeing construction jobs picking up. We’re seeing manufacturing jobs picking up. The unemployment rate dropped. We’re seeing the big component of the workforce, the mid 20s to mid 50s is very stable. And Rob, the other important thing too, is these jobs are going to Americans. Like we have seen over 2 million jobs created for Americans and we’ve seen over a million illegals leave the workforce. And guess what- mid-20s to mid-50s, supply and demand still work,” the Treasury Secretary said.

“When you take the illegals out of the workforce, working-class wages go up. When you send them back home, rents go down.”

WATCH:

That economic logic is hardly radical.

When the government stops flooding labor markets with illegal workers, employers face greater pressure to recruit Americans, improve compensation, and offer better conditions.

Housing follows a similar pattern because every additional person needs somewhere to live.

Reducing illegal immigration can ease demand in communities where rents, shelters, schools, hospitals, and local budgets have been stretched to their limits.

The Trump administration is right to enforce immigration law and remove people who entered or remained in the country illegally.

Biden’s border disaster created economic pressure that ordinary Americans were forced to absorb while Washington Democrats congratulated themselves for their supposed compassion.

Yet mass deportations cannot carry the entire burden of restoring affordability.

Prices rose under Barack Obama and other presidents who did not permit illegal immigration on the astonishing scale seen during the Biden years.

Immigration enforcement can provide meaningful relief, but it is not a magic wand for every expensive feature of American life.

Housing, healthcare, energy, insurance, food, and transportation have also been driven upward by taxes, regulation, government mandates, and restrictions on production.

Republicans therefore need to attack the affordability crisis from both directions.

They should reduce artificial demand created by illegal immigration while also removing government barriers that prevent businesses, builders, doctors, energy producers, and innovators from expanding supply.

That means embracing free market solutions without apology.

Lower taxes, fewer regulations, stronger competition, greater consumer choice, and less government interference would do more for struggling families than another pile of subsidies designed by federal bureaucrats.

Housing reform is especially urgent because local zoning rules and permitting delays often make new construction painfully slow and needlessly expensive.

State and local leaders must allow builders to increase supply instead of protecting bureaucratic obstacles that enrich insiders and punish young families.

Healthcare requires a similar dose of competition and transparency.

Government programs should be protected from fraud, but policymakers must also dismantle rules that limit choices, conceal prices, and allow powerful institutions to avoid real competition.

Energy policy matters just as much because energy costs are embedded in nearly everything Americans purchase.

Expanding domestic production and reducing regulatory delays can lower costs throughout agriculture, manufacturing, shipping, construction, and household budgets.

The Trump administration has already pursued parts of this agenda by cutting taxes, shrinking parts of the federal government, exposing abuse in public programs, and reducing regulatory burdens.

The One Big Beautiful Bill also advanced the broader effort to leave more money and decision making power with American workers and businesses.

Technology, including artificial intelligence, can further increase productivity and lower costs if government does not smother innovation before it matures.

America should lead the next economic era rather than surrender it to competitors because frightened politicians demanded another regulatory maze.

Many necessary reforms cannot come from Washington alone.

Governors, state lawmakers, mayors, county officials, and voters must challenge the local rules and entrenched interests that keep housing scarce, healthcare opaque, and basic services expensive.

Mass deportations remain an important economic and national policy tool, and Bessent is right about the immediate benefits.

But lasting affordability will require secure borders, lawful labor markets, abundant production, competitive industries, and a government finally willing to get out of the American people’s way.

Jen Psaki Melts Down Over Karoline Leavitt for Refusing to Worship the Corporate Press [WATCH]
News

Jen Psaki Melts Down Over Karoline Leavitt for Refusing to Worship the Corporate Press [WATCH]

/

Former Biden White House press secretary Jen Psaki used her Thursday MS NOW program to launch a blistering attack on outgoing Trump press secretary Karoline Leavitt, accusing her of dodging difficult questions, misleading the public, and turning the briefing room into friendly territory.

The criticism came after President Donald Trump announced that Leavitt would leave the administration to prioritize her family.

Leavitt, the youngest person ever to serve as White House press secretary, has held the position since Trump returned to office last year.

Psaki argued that conflict between journalists and the White House is an essential part of the briefing room.

She insisted Leavitt had little interest in participating honestly when reporters challenged the administration.

“The relationship between the press and the White House is supposed to be adversarial by design,” Psaki said.

“But Karoline Leavitt didn’t want to engage in good faith with those reporters and their tough questions.”

Psaki claimed Leavitt transformed the briefing room into what she described as a personal safe space.

She also complained that Leavitt generally conducted briefings only once or twice each week, which Psaki portrayed as an effort to avoid scrutiny.

The former Biden spokeswoman also targeted Leavitt’s effort to expand access for new media organizations.

Psaki accused her Trump counterpart of filling the room with MAGA loyalists and friendly podcast hosts who were more likely to praise the president than challenge him.

Legacy media outlets have complained about the new media seat, particularly when its occupants have asked favorable questions.

Of course, those same institutions rarely showed such concern while Biden officials enjoyed years of remarkably gentle treatment from much of the Washington press corps.

The White House quickly rejected Psaki’s broadside.

Spokesman Davis Ingle responded with a reminder of the reputation Psaki developed while repeatedly promising reporters that she would return later with answers.

“Jen ‘Circle Back’ Psaki couldn’t hold a candle to Karoline Leavitt,” Ingle told Fox News Digital.

Psaki maintained that Leavitt’s approach carried consequences beyond frustrating reporters.

She argued that the briefing room is supposed to provide Americans with reliable information about what their government is doing.

“That room is supposed to be where the American people get answers about what their government is doing. And when an administration doesn’t take that responsibility seriously, the American people are the ones who pay the price,” she said.

Psaki then accused Leavitt of repeatedly lying and serving Trump rather than the public.

The charge was especially rich coming from a former spokeswoman for an administration known for scripted answers, carefully managed appearances, and persistent efforts to shield Biden from uncontrolled questioning.

“It’s been about telling the version of the truth according to the serial liar who sits in the Oval Office. Reporters in the room don’t matter. The American people who rely on the reporting from the reporters in the room [don’t] matter, she’s never seen her job as working for the American people as a public servant,” Psaki said.

WATCH:

Tricia McLaughlin, who served as assistant secretary for public affairs at the Department of Homeland Security, strongly disagreed with Psaki’s portrayal.

She pointed to favorable assessments of Leavitt from organizations hardly known for giving Trump officials an easy ride.

“I’ve seen coverage from the New York Times to even Newsweek and CNN that was pretty glowing about Karoline’s professionalism, how quickly she would get back to reporters, how she was actually in the room and had the information firsthand, which is so important for a press secretary to understand the policies, understand the president, where he is on the issues, and then be able to communicate that back to those reporter,” McLaughlin said.

Several White House correspondents also praised Leavitt after her departure was announced.

One veteran reporter told Fox News Digital that Leavitt was easier to work with than the press secretaries who represented Biden.

“Karoline was the best press secretary I’ve ever worked with, and there have been many,” the reporter said.

“I think the reason she’s so effective is because she spent real time with Trump, as well as time understanding his policies and reasoning behind them.”

The reporter contrasted Leavitt with Biden press secretary Karine Jean Pierre, saying the former Biden spokeswoman neither spent comparable time with the president nor developed the same command of his policies.

The reporter also said Psaki treated journalists with disdain, while Leavitt understood how to work with them.

No replacement for Leavitt has been announced.

As the White House considers its next press secretary, Psaki’s attack appears unlikely to erase the positive reviews Leavitt received from reporters who actually dealt with her, no matter how loudly the former Biden spokeswoman circles back to partisan complaints.

Democrat Candidate Rob Sand Booed From Iowa Fair After Hiding in Public Restroom [WATCH]
News

Democrat Candidate Rob Sand Booed From Iowa Fair After Hiding in Public Restroom [WATCH]

/

Rob Sand’s appearance at the Iowa State Fair turned into a political spectacle Thursday when the Democratic candidate for governor faced angry questions, loud boos, and an embarrassing retreat into a bathroom.

The scene quickly became a brutal preview of the scrutiny waiting for Sand on the campaign trail.

Sand, Iowa’s sitting state auditor, reportedly remained behind a locked bathroom door for roughly fifteen minutes.

Outside, Iowa voters and activists affiliated with Turning Point Action waited for him to return and answer questions about his political record.

The activists wanted direct answers from a candidate seeking control of the governor’s office.

Instead, Sand stayed out of sight while the crowd gathered, giving critics plenty of ammunition and turning an uncomfortable confrontation into a public relations disaster.

When Sand finally emerged, the reception was even louder.

Boos followed him as activists continued pressing him with questions, but the Democrat did not stop to provide the sort of answers voters might expect from someone campaigning to lead their state.

Rather than confront the criticism, Sand moved toward the exit and left the fairgrounds.

For a politician trying to project confidence and statewide appeal, the bathroom retreat was not exactly the commanding image his campaign would have ordered.

The episode offered Republicans a ready made argument about Sand’s willingness to face Iowa voters when circumstances become difficult.

It is easy for candidates to deliver polished remarks before friendly audiences, but unscripted questions can reveal far more than another carefully managed campaign appearance.

Supporters of the confrontation rejected suggestions that Sand had been unfairly harassed.

Turning Point Action activists and other social media users argued that the crowd was demanding accountability from a public official who now wants a significant promotion from state auditor to governor.

Those activists also viewed the boos as a legitimate expression of voter frustration.

Sand may not have enjoyed the send off, but campaigns for major office are rarely designed around protecting candidates from pointed questions and public disagreement.

WATCH:

The spectacle was especially damaging because Sand is attempting to convince Iowans that Democrats can again compete for the state’s highest office.

Iowa has shifted considerably toward Republicans in recent elections, making every campaign mistake more costly for a Democrat hoping to reverse that trend.

Still, Republicans cannot afford to dismiss Sand or treat the race as settled.

The 2026 governor’s contest is expected to be competitive, with Republican businessman Zach Lahn standing between Sand and the governor’s mansion.

The race is also for an open seat because Republican Governor Kim Reynolds decided not to seek another term.

Her departure creates an opportunity for Democrats, though Iowa’s recent voting history gives Republicans strong reasons for confidence.

President Donald Trump carried Iowa by thirteen percentage points in the 2024 presidential election.

Reynolds also won reelection by eighteen points in 2022, demonstrating how firmly the state’s electorate has moved away from the Democratic Party in recent years.

Sand remains the strongest statewide figure Iowa Democrats currently possess.

He is the only Democrat holding statewide office in Iowa, a fact his campaign will use to argue that he can attract independents and some Republicans despite the state’s conservative direction.

His previous victory, however, was hardly overwhelming.

Sand secured reelection as state auditor in 2022 by fewer than 3,000 votes, surviving by a narrow margin that showed both his political resilience and his vulnerability.

That close result allows Sand to claim he has already endured difficult political terrain.

It also means Republicans have a clear opening to define him before Democrats can successfully market him as a moderate alternative who somehow floats above his party’s unpopular national brand.

The Iowa State Fair incident may now become part of that definition.

Video of a candidate disappearing into a bathroom while voters wait outside is the kind of campaign image that can spread rapidly and remain in the public memory.

Sand will have opportunities to recover, explain his conduct, and present his agenda.

Yet his critics have already framed the moment as a test of political courage, and in their view, the candidate responded by locking the door.

For Iowa Republicans, the lesson is straightforward.

Sand should be taken seriously as a candidate, but he should also be pressed relentlessly on his record, his party, and whether his instinct under pressure is to engage voters or search for the nearest exit.

Luigi Mangione Confesses to Cold Blooded Killing as Brian Thompson’s Widow Sobs [WATCH]
News

Luigi Mangione Confesses to Cold Blooded Killing as Brian Thompson’s Widow Sobs [WATCH]

/

Luigi Mangione admitted Friday that he fatally shot UnitedHealthcare chief executive Brian Thompson, entering a guilty plea to federal stalking charges in Manhattan.

Thompson’s widow watched from the courtroom gallery and cried silently as the accused killer finally acknowledged what he had done.

“I shot Mr. Thompson in Manhattan, and he died,” Mangione, 28, told the court while reading from a prepared letter.

The blunt admission came after months of legal maneuvering and grotesque public celebration from radical admirers who somehow turned an accused assassin into a political mascot.

Mangione entered the courtroom wearing a beige prison jumpsuit over a white shirt, with his ankles shackled and his hands free behind his back.

Members of Thompson’s family glared at him as he walked inside, sat with his attorneys, reviewed court papers, and signed a document.

“Mr. Mangione is prepared to plead guilty to the indictment at this time,” defense attorney Karen Agnifilo told the judge. Mangione appeared solemn and answered “yes” as United States District Judge Margaret Garnett walked him through the legal consequences of his plea.

Garnett informed Mangione that he could receive a life sentence, prompting him to nod slightly.

The courtroom display was far removed from the defiant image surrounding the writings prosecutors say revealed his rage against the health insurance industry and his effort to justify political violence.

In his statement, Mangione described years of severe back pain and explained how his resentment developed into a plot targeting Thompson.

He also admitted posing as an investor connected to a firm managing $150 million in assets to obtain information about UnitedHealthcare’s 2024 conference in New York City.

Mangione told the court that he used a three dimensional printer to manufacture a firearm before traveling to New York.

“I equipped the gun with a silencer and a magazine,” he said, laying out the deliberate preparation behind a killing that shocked the country.

WATCH:

He had been scheduled to face a federal trial in January on two charges, interstate stalking resulting in death and stalking through the use of interstate facilities resulting in death.

His guilty plea eliminates that trial, and his federal sentencing hearing is scheduled for Dec. 18.

The federal plea does not resolve Mangione’s serious legal exposure in New York state court.

He still faces second degree murder, second degree criminal possession of a forged instrument, and several criminal possession of a weapon counts, with jury selection scheduled to begin Sept. 8.

His attorneys said after the hearing that they plan to argue a state conviction would violate protections against double jeopardy.

Garnett also warned Mangione that any sentence imposed in the state case could run consecutively to his federal punishment, potentially keeping him behind bars for life.

Prosecutors say Mangione stalked Thompson, a 50 year old father of two, before killing him on a Midtown Manhattan sidewalk outside a hotel in December 2024.

Although the federal indictment did not charge Mangione with murder, it accused him of stalking Thompson and causing his death.

WATCH:

The killing triggered a five day manhunt that ended when police officers arrested Mangione at a McDonald’s restaurant in Altoona, Pennsylvania.

Authorities said they found evidence connecting him to the attack, including writings that portrayed the assassination as a rebellion against what he viewed as a corrupt insurance system.

Investigators also said ammunition casings recovered from the scene carried the words “delay” and “deny,” language associated with criticism of insurance claim practices.

Prosecutors allege Mangione wrote that insurance executives “literally extracts human life force for money,” exposing the ideological grievance they say helped fuel the plot.

Far left activists and disturbed online fans have nevertheless elevated Mangione as a folk hero, treating alleged political motives as an excuse for execution in the street.

Even after his guilty plea, a man riding past the courthouse shouted support, another ugly reminder that parts of the radical left increasingly view violence as acceptable when aimed at their chosen enemies.

Woman Arrested on Two Felonies After Desecrating Sacred World War II Memorial, Faces Ten Years [WATCH]
News

Woman Arrested on Two Felonies After Desecrating Sacred World War II Memorial, Faces Ten Years [WATCH]

/

Federal authorities have identified and arrested Melissa L. Farris in connection with the vandalism of the World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C. She now faces two felony charges carrying penalties of up to ten years in prison.

The disgraceful incident unfolded Thursday at one of the nation’s most sacred military monuments.

The memorial honors the Americans who served, sacrificed, and died while defending freedom during the largest and deadliest war in human history.

The memorial fountain was filled with a substance that produced large amounts of bubbling soap.

Vandals also left behind graffiti and splattered areas of the site with red and green paint, turning a place of solemn remembrance into a cheap political spectacle.

The words “Clean hands Dirty $” were spray painted on one of the memorial’s surfaces.

WATCH:

Whatever message was intended, the result was an ugly insult aimed at a monument dedicated to millions of courageous Americans.

The Interior Department, which oversees the National Park Service, quickly announced that such destruction would not be tolerated.

Officials also committed to locating whoever was responsible and holding that person accountable under federal law.

Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, later announced the arrest of Farris.

Pirro said prosecutors were filing two felony charges in federal court over the alleged attack on the memorial.

Those charges are Depredation Against Property of the United States and Destruction of Veterans’ Memorials.

If convicted on both counts, Farris could face penalties of up to ten years behind bars for the alleged vandalism.

WATCH:

Pirro also released two photographs of Farris while announcing the charges.

One image shows Farris wearing sunglasses and looking toward the camera, while another appears to show her spray painting words directly onto the memorial.

“Vandalizing our World War II Memorial is a despicable attack on a sacred monument honoring the Americans who fought and died for our freedom,” Pirro wrote on X.

“Those Americans include my father and grandfather.”

“This morning, we are filing two felony charges, Depredation Against Property of the United States and Destruction of Veterans’ Memorial in Federal District Court against Melissa L. Farris, offenses that carry penalties of up to ten years in prison,” she added.

Pirro’s personal connection to the generation honored by the memorial added weight to her response.

For countless American families, these monuments are not abstract government structures but lasting tributes to fathers, grandfathers, mothers, and loved ones who answered history’s call.

The World War II Memorial sits near the heart of the nation’s capital and commemorates the service of 16 million members of the United States Armed Forces.

It also remembers more than 400,000 Americans who gave their lives during the conflict.

That history is precisely why the vandalism drew such immediate outrage.

Dumping chemicals, spreading paint, and scrawling a crude slogan across a veterans memorial is not brave activism, no matter what excuse the radical protest crowd might cook up afterward.

Destroying public property is already a serious matter, but targeting a memorial dedicated to fallen Americans crosses another line.

Taxpayers should not have to repeatedly repair national treasures because someone wanted attention and apparently mistook desecration for courage.

The charges announced by Pirro make clear that federal authorities are treating the incident as more than a prank.

Farris will now answer to the allegations in federal court, where slogans and sunglasses will matter far less than evidence and criminal statutes.

Americans expect sacred monuments to be protected, not surrendered to vandals with paint cans and political grievances.

If prosecutors prove their case, the potential prison sentence will serve as a blunt reminder that dishonoring the nation’s war dead can carry serious consequences.

Minneapolis Mayor Unleashes Painfully Humiliating Dance Moves in Epic Public Cringe [WATCH]
News

Minneapolis Mayor Unleashes Painfully Humiliating Dance Moves in Epic Public Cringe [WATCH]

/

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey turned a weekend appearance at the Black Entrepreneur State Fair into a spectacle for all the wrong reasons, unleashing dance moves that quickly became social media ammunition.

The leftist mayor appeared determined to manufacture enthusiasm, but the result looked more like a public service announcement against political pandering.

Frey, 45, wore an ivory button down shirt, gray khakis, and dark sunglasses while attempting to dance during a rap performance.

As a pounding beat played, he awkwardly moved his arms and hips beside an emcee who had considerably more rhythm and stage presence.

The performance unfolded in what appeared to be a mostly empty parking lot, adding another layer of discomfort to the scene.

Frey tried to match the emcee’s energy, but every stiff motion seemed to widen the gap between confidence and actual coordination.

For politicians, staged displays of enthusiasm are nothing new, particularly when cameras are present and voters are nearby.

Frey, however, managed to make the familiar ritual look especially painful, proving once again that ambition cannot purchase rhythm.

WATCH:

Social media users wasted little time delivering their verdict, and they were not inclined to soften the blow.

One bewildered user on X wrote, “This cannot be real life. This is just so sad on an epic scale,” capturing the disbelief that greeted the footage.

Another commenter pointed toward the theatrical nature of modern politics, where elected officials increasingly seem desperate to perform rather than govern.

“We’re ruled by theater kids. How did we let this happen?” the user asked.

The mockery only grew as viewers examined Frey’s rigid movements and apparent inability to follow the beat.

“Is he made of wood?” another poster asked, offering a theory that would at least explain the mayor’s remarkable stiffness.

One observer delivered an especially concise review of the mayor’s performance.

“That dance was stiff as a board. Zero rhythm, all effort. Brutal for real,” the commenter wrote.

That assessment was difficult to dispute after watching Frey plod through the routine with the intensity of a man trying to remember instructions from a dance lesson he never attended.

His sunglasses could conceal his eyes, but they could not hide the mechanical arm movements or strained hip action.

The embarrassing episode was not Frey’s first encounter with viral criticism over his dancing.

Minneapolis residents and internet viewers have previously watched the mayor test the limits of public secondhand embarrassment at other political and cultural events.

During a Somali Independence Day celebration in Minneapolis last summer, Frey was handed a Somalian flag while standing onstage.

He then attempted another dance, waving his limbs in a manner that resembled an embarrassing uncle trying to swim through the air.

That earlier performance might have persuaded a more cautious politician to retire from public dancing.

Frey apparently drew the opposite lesson and returned to the stage during his 2025 reelection campaign with another routine that gave viewers fresh material.

At that campaign event, the mayor’s movements appeared to imitate an ostrich as he entered the stage.

It was another energetic but deeply uncoordinated display from a politician who seems convinced that enthusiasm alone can overcome every visible limitation.

Frey’s latest outing fits neatly into the modern progressive political playbook, where carefully staged gestures are often treated as substitutes for authenticity.

Yet forced relatability can backfire quickly when the performance looks less like celebration and more like a mayor begging the audience to believe he belongs.

There is nothing wrong with elected officials enjoying community events, but Frey’s repeated dance disasters have become their own running civic comedy.

Minneapolis voters may debate his record and political agenda, but the internet has reached a firm bipartisan conclusion about his rhythm.

The mayor could spare himself another round of ridicule by clapping politely, smiling for photographs, and leaving the dancing to people who can hear the beat.

Until then, every public performance risks becoming yet another reminder that political confidence and physical coordination are very different talents.

Based Tucson Grandma Draws Gun and Sends Brazen Ross Shoplifter Running [WATCH]
News

Based Tucson Grandma Draws Gun and Sends Brazen Ross Shoplifter Running [WATCH]

/

An elderly woman in Tucson, Arizona, became an instant internet sensation after allegedly drawing a handgun and chasing a suspected shoplifter from a Ross store.

Social media users quickly hailed her as an absolutely “BASED elderly woman” and a “badass grandma,” reflecting public fury over thieves who treat retail aisles like personal warehouses.

Video circulating online shows the suspected thief casually leaving the Eastside Tucson store with several bags of merchandise.

The store alarm blares in the background, but the man appears determined to keep walking as though nothing unusual is happening.

That is when the elderly bystander steps into the scene and confronts him.

She reportedly draws a handgun while attempting to stop his escape, delivering the kind of response that frustrated Americans rarely see from store employees who are ordered to stand aside.

Tucson Police confirmed that officers are investigating the incident as a shoplifting case.

Investigators are also reviewing the viral footage as evidence while continuing their effort to identify and locate the suspected thief.

Officers were unable to find the suspect after arriving at the store, and no arrests have been announced.

Police are asking anyone with information about the theft or the individual shown in the video to contact authorities.

The woman may have won plenty of applause online, but attorneys warn that her intervention could create serious legal trouble.

“It really depends on the details, but there is a statute that authorizes people to display or use a firearm to prevent certain crimes,” said Tucson criminal defense attorney Louis Fidel.

“Shoplifting is not one of those crimes.”

According to Fidel, pointing a firearm during a property crime could expose a bystander to an aggravated assault charge involving a deadly weapon.

That warning has only added to the frustration surrounding the episode.

Americans watch thieves stroll through stores with armfuls of merchandise, while the person willing to intervene may face more immediate legal scrutiny than the criminal who walked away.

Introducing a firearm into a retail theft can also create obvious dangers for customers, employees, the suspected thief, and the armed bystander.

A confrontation over merchandise can turn deadly within seconds, particularly when an untrained participant does not know whether the suspect is armed.

Retail chains have responded to that danger by establishing strict rules telling employees not to confront thieves.

“Large corporations and most of the small ones have told their employees, do not engage,” said Michelle Ahlmer, Executive Director of the Arizona Retailers Association.

“Their lives and their safety is more important to us than the product.”

That policy may protect workers from immediate violence, but it also leaves law abiding customers watching criminals walk away with little resistance.

Ahlmer said violence directed at loss prevention employees has increased across the retail industry.

She warned that customers who attempt to intervene can escalate a volatile encounter, even when their intentions are understandable.

“I think they’re just frustrated,” Ahlmer said regarding bystanders who step in.

“They see that prices are high, and every time somebody steals something, the result is prices go up.”

That frustration is hardly mysterious. Honest families pay for their purchases, follow the rules, and absorb higher prices while brazen thieves grab what they want and head for the exits.

The Tucson incident follows another local case in which witnesses intervened after a seventy year old man was knocked to the ground during an attempted restaurant robbery.

Those witnesses helped police locate the suspect, who was later arrested on an attempted robbery charge.

WATCH:

The difference between assisting police and confronting a thief with a firearm can carry enormous legal consequences.

Still, the viral reaction shows how thoroughly fed up the public has become with retail crime, weak deterrence, and a system that often seems quicker to warn good citizens than catch offenders.

Most Americans Still Don’t Know What Socialism Actually Is, And That’s Exactly How the Left Wants It [WATCH]
News

Most Americans Still Don’t Know What Socialism Actually Is, And That’s Exactly How the Left Wants It [WATCH]

/

Political commentator Kaizen D. Asiedu argued that many Americans have an inaccurate understanding of socialism, contending that public support for socialist policies is often rooted in confusion about what the ideology actually entails rather than an understanding of its economic structure.

Speaking during a recent discussion, Asiedu pointed to recent elections across Latin America, arguing that several countries have moved away from socialist or Marxist leadership after experiencing the results firsthand.

“So now, Colombia rejected a socialist. Peru rejected a socialist. El Salvador, Chile, Honduras, Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina, all rejected Marxist or socialist leadership, and Venezuela was destroyed by socialism.”

He contrasted those developments with what he sees as growing acceptance of socialism in the United States.

“Latin Americans are rejecting socialism after having tried it. So why are Americans accepting socialism, having never tried it?”

According to Asiedu, the answer begins with a misunderstanding of the term itself.

“Well, partially because most Americans don’t know what socialism is.”

He argued that many people incorrectly associate socialism with popular government programs.

“It’s not healthcare for all or affordable housing. Socialism isn’t a synonym for all the things I want, but I’m not getting in my capitalist country. It’s not a vibe.”

Asiedu then offered his definition of socialism.

“It’s an economic system characterized by collective or governmental ownership of the means of production. Means of production meaning infrastructure used to produce goods and services like factories, farms, and companies.”

He also defined capitalism, arguing that it is frequently misunderstood as well.

“Capitalism also isn’t a vibe. It’s not billionaires and corporations controlling politics. It’s not a synonym for all the things I hate about my country. It’s an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, aka the means of production.”

Asiedu compared economic systems to computer operating systems, saying both capitalism and socialism exist in multiple forms.

“Now, just like Mac versus Windows, there are different versions of capitalism and socialism.”

He pointed to Scandinavian countries as examples that are often incorrectly labeled as socialist.

“Finland, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden are less capitalistic than America, but they are still capitalist.”

According to Asiedu, private ownership remains the defining characteristic of those economies.

“Although they have a few exceptions to the rule, private companies own the means of production, not the government, in those countries.”

He argued that individual government programs should not be confused with an entire economic system.

“Now, you might like certain programs that socialism promises, like universal healthcare, but those programs aren’t tied to a specific operating system.”

Using another technology analogy, he continued:

“You can run Photoshop on Mac or Windows, just like you can have universal healthcare in socialism or capitalism.”

Asiedu said public understanding of socialism has declined over time.

“But it seems we as a people keep getting more confused about what socialism is.”

He cited polling data to support that claim.

“In 1949, 34% of Americans correctly identified socialism as government ownership of the economy. By 2018, only 17% did, and I suspect it’s even worse now.”

He added that, in his view, some political leaders also misuse the term.

“American politicians are confused, too. In 2015, Denmark’s Prime Minister had to correct Bernie Sanders and say, Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.”

Asiedu also referenced New York politician Zohran Mamdani.

“Zohran Mamdani is a democratic socialist. Democratic socialism is a version of socialism.”

He acknowledged that supporters of socialism often argue it has never been implemented correctly but questioned that argument.

“Now, you could argue that socialism just hasn’t been done right yet, and when every socialist experiment at the national level in the 20th century failed, and every experiment in the 21st century is failing, maybe the problem isn’t that socialism hasn’t worked in practice, it’s that it almost certainly can’t work in principle.”

He continued by arguing that repeatedly claiming future attempts will succeed despite past failures is not persuasive.

“And maybe the assertion that this time will be different isn’t optimism, it’s actually just unfalsifiability, where a theory cannot ever be contradicted by actual evidence.”

Despite his criticism of socialism, Asiedu said he believes capitalism has shortcomings that deserve attention.

“We have bugs in this version of capitalism that need to be fixed, principally that there is too much money in politics, that billions of dollars speak louder than millions of voices.”

He argued that socialist movements can serve a constructive role by encouraging reforms without replacing the broader economic system.

“And you know what? The socialists might create healthy pressure to fix those bugs. That’s good, but that’s different than changing the whole operating system.”

Asiedu concluded by arguing that history favors reforming capitalism rather than replacing it.

“Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease, because when there’s never been a successful socialist country in history, and the countries who have actually experimented with it are abandoning it, the results start to speak for themselves. And lately, they’re speaking Spanish.”

WATCH:

Math vs. Marxism: Will Cain Runs the Numbers on the DSA’s Insane Agenda [WATCH]
News

Math vs. Marxism: Will Cain Runs the Numbers on the DSA’s Insane Agenda [WATCH]

/

Fox News host Will Cain argued that the Democratic Socialists of America’s policy platform carries a price tag that far exceeds what could be funded through higher taxes on corporations and wealthy Americans, contending that the math ultimately points to the middle class bearing the cost.

During a recent segment, Cain broke down what he described as the estimated costs of several proposals commonly associated with the Democratic Socialists of America, including universal health care, reparations, a federal jobs guarantee and housing initiatives.

“Let’s start with that price tag. How do you get to $200 trillion over 10 years? The number is absolutely staggering, and it breaks down into categories. It breaks down into promises on the DSA’s wish list.”

Cain began with what he identified as the projected cost of universal health care.

“Let’s start with universal healthcare. Over a 10-year period, that’s estimated to cost as much as $75 trillion.”

He then turned to reparations.

“But we don’t stop there. There’s been talk of reparations. Add another $28 trillion to the wish list.”

Cain also discussed a federal jobs guarantee.

“How about a federal jobs guarantee? That’s $60 trillion potentially at the high end over 10 years.”

He included housing proposals in his calculation as well.

“Now if you add this all up, including housing for all, which is another $17 trillion, then you get to a high estimate of $211 trillion over 10 years. Bringing up the question again, who pays?”

According to Cain, supporters of the Democratic Socialists of America argue that the necessary revenue would come from taxing corporations and wealthy individuals.

“Now the DSA, it has an answer: the rich, big corporations.”

Cain then argued that those revenue sources would not generate enough money to fund the proposals.

“So let’s look at reality. This lays out the high-end and the low-end estimates of the DSA’s wish list costs.”

He said eliminating corporate profits through taxation would still fall short.

“Now, if you taxed over a 10-year period all corporate profits, so you zeroed out corporate profits over a 10-year period, you’d bring in about $35 trillion.”

Cain also addressed taxes on high-income Americans.

“If you taxed the wealthiest in America at a rate of 40%, you’d bring in another half trillion dollars.”

He continued by discussing the effect of confiscating wealth.

“If you confiscated all of their wealth, well, you’d bring in about $6.6 trillion.”

Cain then explored an even higher tax scenario.

“But I want to go even further, because anybody on the left or a member of the DSA’d be saying, I don’t want to stop at 40%. So let’s go further. What if you did what America did in the mid-1950s and 60s, and you implemented a tax rate of over 90%?”

According to Cain, even that would not close the gap.

“We would still then only bring in about $2 trillion over 10 years.”

Cain argued that the proposals ultimately collide with economic reality.

“So, what the DSA’s wish list, its empty promises run into is the hard, cold reality of math.”

He said that, in his view, even the lower estimates remain well beyond available revenue.

“You add all that together, and you come nowhere near. Forget the high estimate of $200 trillion, but the low estimate of $71 trillion.”

Cain concluded that the burden would ultimately shift to middle-income Americans.

“So where do you go for the money? They go where they always end up going for the money: to you, the middle class.”

He also argued that implementing the proposals would dramatically increase the size of the federal government relative to the nation’s economy.

“And then, of course, it’s what do we look like? What’s the country look like? What size of government are we dealing with? Right now, our government spending amounts to about 40% of gross domestic product.”

Cain said his estimates indicate government spending would increase substantially under the DSA’s proposals.

“All right? The DSA’s wish list agenda on that low-end projection would take it to 57% of GDP. But the high-end projection of more than $200 trillion over 10 years means that government spending would be 92% of GDP.”

He concluded by arguing that such a change would fundamentally alter the nation’s economic system.

“That is a lot of government. That is actually a fundamental rewriting of the American economy and a fundamental rewriting of America.”

WATCH:

 

Brandon Gill Drops a Massive Truth Bomb On America’s Immigration Situation [WATCH]
News

Brandon Gill Drops a Massive Truth Bomb On America’s Immigration Situation [WATCH]

/

Rep. Brandon Gill argued that mass migration has become one of the primary forces affecting the U.S. economy, contending that both illegal immigration and large-scale legal immigration are placing financial pressure on American workers through lower wages, higher housing costs and increased health care expenses.

Speaking during a recent interview, Gill said immigration is connected to many of the economic challenges facing Americans today.

“Mass migration being one of the biggest things.”

Gill urged listeners to consider the economic impact of adding millions of new arrivals to the country over a relatively short period of time.

“Ask yourself, whenever you flood this country with millions of people, primarily illegal, but also a large-scale legal immigration in certain areas, what does that do?”

According to Gill, one consequence is increased competition in the labor market that, in his view, suppresses wages while simultaneously increasing the cost of living.

“That suppresses wages while at the same time driving up the price of rent and the price of housing.”

He argued that American workers are affected from multiple directions at once.

“So you’re getting hit on both fronts.”

Gill also contended that the increased number of migrants entering the workforce makes it more difficult for American citizens to secure employment.

“These are also the same people who are coming in and taking American jobs, making it harder to find work.”

Beyond employment and housing, Gill said he believes mass migration has contributed to rising medical expenses and insurance premiums.

“They’re the they’re the reason why whenever you go to the hospital and you realize your your doctor bill or your insurance bill is insane, you realize it’s because we have millions of people from all over the Third World that have been let into our country and we’re subsidizing their health care and your insurance prices are paying for that.”

Gill argued that taxpayers ultimately bear the financial burden of providing services to millions of new arrivals, which he believes places additional strain on government resources and private health insurance systems.

He said the cumulative effect of those policies is felt across multiple sectors of the economy, including employment, housing and health care, leaving American families facing higher costs and greater financial pressure.

According to Gill, the issues he identified are interconnected rather than isolated challenges.

He argued that immigration policy has broad economic consequences that extend well beyond border security and directly affect the daily lives of working Americans.

Gill maintained that the trends he described have contributed to increasing costs for households while reducing economic opportunities for U.S. citizens.

He said the combination of lower wages, more expensive housing and rising medical costs represents a pattern that policymakers should address.

While discussing the issue, Gill emphasized that he believes immigration policy sits at the center of many of the economic concerns Americans raise.

“I mean, you can go on and on and on, but that’s what I think that it all does go back to mass migration.”

WATCH:

Throughout his remarks, Gill argued that both illegal immigration and certain forms of large-scale legal immigration have had significant economic consequences.

He maintained that policies allowing millions of migrants to enter the country have increased competition for jobs, raised housing costs and contributed to higher health care expenses, concluding that mass migration is a driving factor behind many of the affordability challenges facing American families.


Scroll to Top